Category Archives: Fossil Fuel Reduction

PLEA Network

26 August 2015, The Guardian, US environmental agency advising Australia on impact of fracking on water. The US’s Environmental Protection Agency has given Australia’s Department of the Environment details of recent fracking study and is peer reviewing papers. The Australian government has obtained information from US environmental regulators on the impact of fracking upon water supplies to help inform a new set of guidelines it is preparing on the controversial activity. The US’s Environmental Protection Agency has supplied the Australian Department of the Environment with the details of a recent study on fracking. The EPA has also helped the department peer review a number of its own documents. The EPA report is the result of a request from Congress to analyse how fracking for oil and gas is affecting water supplies in the US. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process where a combination of water, chemicals and sand is injected deep underground in order to release oil or gas from rocky areas. Fracking is banned in Victoria and has faced opposition from environmental groups, some farmers and radio personality Alan Jones in New South Wales and Queensland. However, the EPA report said it could find no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” from fracking, which is deployed across vast swathes of the country. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

25 August 2015, BBC, Carbon credits undercut climate change actions says report. The vast majority of carbon credits generated by Russia and Ukraine did not represent cuts in emissions, according to a new study. The authors say that offsets created under a UN scheme “significantly undermined” efforts to tackle climate change. The credits may have increased emissions by 600 million tonnes. In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash. As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production. Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union’s carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts. But this study, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, “hot air” – no actual emissions were reduced. Read More here

PLEA Network

25 August 2015, The Conversation, Time for the ‘green tape’ debate to mature: jobs and the environment are not implacable foes. The highly charged debate over the proposed Carmichael coal mine, which culminated in Attorney-General George Brandis’s decision last week to propose winding back environmental legal protections, has exposed the simmering tension between “jobs” and “the environment” on Australia’s political landscape. On one hand, those seeking to invest in the development of Australia’s natural resources and jobs growth have been making a clear case that Australia’s system of assessment and approval for major projects is riddled with procedural uncertainty. On the other, environmental advocates and local communities feel that the current system does not adequately protect the environment – correctly pointing out Australia’s less than stellar record in preventing species from going extinct. As a nation, however, we need to lift our game on both fronts. Investors in the Australian economy and those seeking jobs and growth need certainty with regard to where and how they invest. Equally, to avoid warfare (or “lawfare”) on a project-by-project basis, Australia’s environmental advocates and local communities need certainty too. They need clarity about where and how economic development can occur without harming our environmental heritage. Read More here

PLEA Network

21 August 015, Climate News Network, China’s carbon count is not as high as feared. The use of poor-quality coal in Chinese power plants means that the carbon dioxide emissions of the world’s biggest polluter are 10% less than previously thought. Calculations on how much carbon dioxide China produces have been wrong for more than 10 years because the official bodies that calculate it have assumed the country’s power stations burn high-quality coal. In fact, the world’s biggest polluter uses coal with a lower carbon content than power stations in Europe and the US, and so produces less carbon dioxide per tonne − around 14% less according to experts from 18 research institutions. Getting the total quantities of CO2 emitted by each country correct is crucial if the world is going to reach agreement on tackling dangerous climate change at the UN conference in Parisin December. One of the stumbling blocks to agreements in the past has been politicians’ need to have a fair system of sharing the burden of cuts.Calculating how much pollution each country produces has been largely based on the quantities of fossil fuels burned in electricity and heat production and in motor vehicles. This has not taken into account the fact that the amount of carbon in coal and oil varies according to its quality, and so an average figure has been used, which turns out to be unfair in the case of China. Read More here